Is that still a reason to blame the OP who has been so kind to share with us? Again as I mentioned above, clearly and obviously we all have mutual grievances, but this thread doesn't seem to be the time or place to air out that laundry.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Is that still a reason to blame the OP who has been so kind to share with us? Again as I mentioned above, clearly and obviously we all have mutual grievances, but this thread doesn't seem to be the time or place to air out that laundry.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Not sure what grievances the Mohammedans would have against the Orthodox. Didn't say it was an excuse to attack the OP, just pointing the historical facts.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I have nothing against the OP or any particular follower of Islam in particular nor do I against a Marxist. I always pray that I have the courage to oppose each system. Personally I have respect towards Tibet & its variant of Buddhism; an invading jihad expedition was buried under a landslide centuries ago but Tibet was later overrun by communism. Jesus Christ commands us to grieve for the loss of jihad lives, Marxist lives, & Tibetan Buddhist lives. I still do not like Islam & marxism & I still have respect for Tibetan Buddhism.

We're living in crazy times, and hopefully with this thread we can have a better understanding.So feel free to ask me anything you want about Islam, I'll try to answer it to the best of my knowledge.Thanks very much

A number of mosques in Bulgaria (and elsewhere, but I'll use Bulgaria as an example) were Christian churches prior to the invasion and occupation by the Ottoman Empire. Those churches were confiscated and converted into mosques. Is there any discussion within Islam that these properties should be returned to their rightful owners?

I was Curious about what you mentioned about monastic Orthodox being foreign to us regular Orthodox, Greek american in my case, are you talking about Monks way of life?

Monastic life is an extreme, every Orthodox Christian is not obligated or even beneficial to live the Monastic life if they are not monks. Did you catch that I said typical American or European? Ask yourself, is the typical American or European even Orthodox Christians let alone monks??

stay blessed,habte selassie

I was just thinking there might be a different denomination or something I was missing, hard to keep up sometimes, but I understood you correctly and agree wholeheartedly with your assessment .

Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“

We're living in crazy times, and hopefully with this thread we can have a better understanding.So feel free to ask me anything you want about Islam, I'll try to answer it to the best of my knowledge.Thanks very much

A number of mosques in Bulgaria (and elsewhere, but I'll use Bulgaria as an example) were Christian churches prior to the invasion and occupation by the Ottoman Empire. Those churches were confiscated and converted into mosques. Is there any discussion within Islam that these properties should be returned to their rightful owners?

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Thank you for the kind greetings Habte, and God bless you for the interesting insights.

It's the first time I've heard the term "spiritual metabolism", but I will make sure to do more research on it. I fully agree with your analysis.

Quote

I like this, it agrees with a Mayan-MesoAmerican philosophy called "spiritual metabolism" which I generally translated into hood-speak as "You get what you give." To these folks, our purpose in the Divine economy is to translate physical energy into spiritual energy, thoughts and feelings. We eat apples, and we give thanks to God, and so the positive feeds off our feelings. The spirits then cultivate us like a garden, if we have a diet on negativity, the negative forces cultivate us towards increasingly negative consumption patterns until we destroy ourselves and the world in the process! When we seek good feelings, positive energies, and beneficial things, we attract angels, saints, and yes God to come into our lives. When we prefer to dine and feast on negative emotions, thoughts, and feelings, we cultivate negative forces like devils and demons. So we should learn to focus on finding Grace and not avarice

Yes, the jinns no doubt feed off on our negative emotions, and if God allows them, they have the ability to change 'luck' in such ways for those emotions to keep happening.

For example, say hypothetically speaking, you had extreme envious feelings towards a wealthy friend who has a really nice car. The jinns will affect both your lives. They'll either push you towards financial ruins, and have your friend get even more wealthy..... and the jinns keep feeding off on the jealousy. Or, they'll make your friend lose their wealth, or severely damage the car, ...etc. and if you have any type of pleasure from their pain, they'll feed off that aswell. If the feelings get too extreme, and violence happens where blood is shed..... that'll be ecstasy for the jinns.

So it's really important to watch ourselves and not giving into those negative feelings.

Quote

As a dreadlock, I didn't consume alcohol for eight years following the Nazirite vow, and I can say, it is a very good lifestyle not to drink. My mom never had drink in her life, my paternal grandfather neither, and they are some of the most joyful people I know all the same. Me, sometimes lately I need a drink

Thanks for taking on this task by the way, we could really use some different perspective and dialogue about these matters.

Let me ask a question related to this idea, do Muslims then find Holy Communion offensive or sacrilegious even?

stay blessed,habte selassie

God bless you, I pray for you to continue staying sober...

About your question, I think it's a great thing to have dinner ceremonies, getting in touch with your neighbors and friends-- nothing offensive with that. However, it's best not to serve alcoholic beverages (wine)... to keep a positive atmosphere, so those negative emotions are kept to a minimal.

What is the relation of Shia Islam to Sufism? I understand that Sufis tend to be predominately Sunni but there is some crossover as well.

My grandmother is a devout Shia Sufi so I probably can help a little with that question. Rumi, the founder of the Sufi Mehlevi Order, was a Persian Iranian and very well known for his Sufi poetry. In my opinion, Sufism very well fits in with Persian religious culture as some of its Persian followers have seen it as a blend a few Islam and a few Zoroastrian aspects. The Sufis of Iran were persecuted under the Ayatollah Khomeini. Examples of Sufi-Shia crossover: the Alevis (Turkey), the Bektashis (Albania and Bosnia), and the Sufis of Iran and Afghanistan.

Logged

Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a Sinner!

What is the relationship between mainstream Islam and the more non-conventional forms of Islam like the Nation of Islam or the Five Percent Nation which are popular among impoverished Black folks in urban areas? Are they considered real Muslims or are they considered a weird offshoot, like the weird Evangelical Christian Churches that sometimes open up?

Why does the quran say that the true Christians would be victorius to the day of ressurection when the only possible canndidate for any group fulfilling that are the Nicene Christians?

I'll be honest with you, this is the first time I've heard the term 'Nicene Christians'... I'll have to read more about this.

But in general, any individual (Christians or not) who live a pious lifestyle where their good deeds outweigh the bad deeds, and they follow their hearth/intuition... will be victorious on the day of resurrection.

That is a Christian in the tradition of Nicea, a Nicene Christian, this encompasses virtually all of christendom today, certaintly the most ancient communions (orthodoxy included). These Christians in direct violation to the quran's statements on Christ were the victorius ones who by the time Muhammad came on the scene were in total control of both the eastern and western empires.

I'm sorry, but when making claims about history the times and places are not "minor" facts. They matter. Good verifiable information can support a person's ideas while errors will not. Dates and places are some of the important facts that are needed to establish what truely happened when and where. They are part of the context that is necessary to understand the larger picture. Meaning no offense to you, but having a "macro perspective" of history sounds vague. If I were to make some claim about history of an event I would have to give some checkable information for other people to use to find out (if they wanted) that such a situation was True. Just because there was some idea that I liked doesn't mean that it is the truth.

I'm sorry Ebor, but what I meant, was that when it comes to history, I pay more attention to the lessonsthat can be learned and less about specific dates, places, ...etc. I believe our thinking process is different, and we place emphasis on different things. I suggest you read about left-brain vs right-brain thinking.... I know that I'm more of a right-brain thinker, so that's why I said "macro perspective".

I mean no offense to you in this, but you are making assumptions on my thinking and understanding if you are under the impression that I do not find "lessons" in history, but only facts. Sometimes it may be the case that a "lesson" might be drawn that is not, in fact, based on real situations or facts.

A case in point: as a Muslim you esteem the Quran and claimed that "the original" has been preserved in totality but that this is not the case for either the Jewish or Christian scriptures. This seemed to have the meaning, or lesson if you will, that there is something superior to Islam because of this preservation. However, the reality and fact of the manuscript and its history from what I found is that 1) there is only about 1/3 of it left and 2) there is more than one as Uthmar had five copies made and then burned all of the versions that had variations which, it was noted with a reference, were usually minor. So there is no exisiting complete "original copy" of the Quran either.

If I misunderstood the lesson that you were trying to get across I apologize. I am also aware of the left/right brain theories and the human brain has different areas of functioning in the different halves. But was there a particular person's/group's ideas that you are thinking of, please?

Quote

Quote

I apologize for any unintended offense, but I know more of the subject than you seem to think that I do. And I disagree with your idea as to what brought the Golden Age to an end. In Spain/Al-Andaluz for example there was suppression of the thought and philosophy of other Muslims under the Almohad rulers. I suppose that one might say that that was a change in the "political system" but it wasn't along the lines that you described above. Here is the wiki link on the Almohad reforms though I can find other material on this if desired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_reformsWikipedia can be a good starting place but deeper understanding comes from the sources and cited materials.

Now I'm not denying it wasn't all peaceful in the early years. Muslims were being harmed by hypocritical Muslims all the time... remember the story of Karbala where Hussein (the prophet's grandson) and his community was struggling to find peace because they didn't go along with evil monarchs who wanted to use the religion as a political force. So just like there were problems in Spain, there were problems in the mideast

From your view as a Shia Muslim, those who slaughtered Hussein and his followers (I am familiar with the history of the early years of Islam) were hypocritical and evil. From the Sunni side they were rebelling against the right way and were dealt with albeit with violence. My point is that there is more than one "side" or view of events.

Quote

But overall it was a peaceful time (golden age) and science/tech was advancing fast in that region. The reason why, is because the religion educated the general public what human rights are. To free slaves, to not kill female children, to be peaceful with others, to be generous, to not deceive one another in the marketplace...etc. Once freedom and human rights were recognized, then the region started to prosper.

Just to understand, when you refer to a particular "region" you mean the area of Persia/Iran? There was a vast area beyond that which was conquered by forces under the banner of Islam beyond that land and the Arabian Peninsula.

Quote

The prosperity ended when evil political changes happened, which restricted freedom in some way... that's when economic changes happened. This is what the devil does.... as the quran says 'he threatens you with poverty'. The devil took over and everything good faded... people let it happen when they didn't take the religion seriously.

Would you please give some more specific information about the times and events that you are thinking of here? What political changes in the Middle East and who wasn't taking the religion seriously? Thank you.

Quote

I'm sure you know more about this topic than I do. But when I studied a subject like optics, I rarely find Al Hazen's name in the text..... you see only Newton (who did add a lot of original ideas...someone I admire), but the book should at least have a few sentences on Al Hazen.

Similar thing with Algebra/Trigonometry texts, you always see bios of European scientists like Euler, Gauss, Euclid, ...etc.... but no mention of the Muslim scholars.

Same thing with Robotic textbooks.... no mention of al-Jazari, who is really the father of robotics.

Well, one question is: Is it the function of the book to refer to everyone who may have been historically involved in a subject or is it focused on a narrower field? Why should any book on optics have a few sentences on Al-Hazen? What about references to the ancient Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans who did things with Optics? From my point should I expect that the English Bishop Robert Grosseteste or Roger Bacon be mentioned in optics texts because they did work in that area? If the purpose of a text is to instruct on a particular subject technically, the writer(s) may not think that historical background is necessary.

It could be that there is less documentation of earlier persons in any particular field. Or how available are some people's works in other languages? Were Al-Hazan's and Al-Jazari's writings translated into any European languages and made widely available? That is one thing that the 'net is good for: making obscure or historical sources widely available. Euclid and Hipparchus are much earlier than the the start of Islam and what we know of them and their works is in Greek and Latin. Newton wrote in Latin and English. How available are a person's works in other languages and if copies survive can also contribute to knowing about them.

It should also be noted that the persons you mentioned were drawing in many cases on the earlier work of the Greeks and other cultures. That was one significant action when Muslims spread to the Persian area: some rulers preserved the libraries and documents that were found and these were then translated and drawn upon by others.

I would not give Al-Jazari the title of "father of Robotics" when there were automata of various kinds in many places and times that pre-date him. There are accounts of them from ancient China, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Technology is more of a continuum with people building on what came before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata

One can try to see history with wide view that encompasses many cultures and times as well as focusing on a particular period and area.

With respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Here is an article from the BBC in 06 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4581684.stm on a manuscript that is said to be the Quran of Uthman/Othman and that is located in Tashkent. It is so fragile that it is kept in a special case and people are not able to just read it. The report also says that due to the deterioration over the centuries of the deer skin on which it was written only about 1/3 of it, about 250 pages, still exists. There is a reference to another partial copy (five were said to have been made at the time, not just one) that is in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul.

This counters the claim that the "original" Quran is preserved in totality.

I think the most important thing that we should consider, is that there is uniformity in the text that all sects of Islam use. The Shias, Sunnis, ...etc. both use the same Quran, and they all place an emphasis on the original Arabic version.

Yes, there is uniformity because it was enforced by Uthman and the variations were destroyed. The variant texts did exist. That is not the same as there is one "original" document that is complete and preserved.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

]Would you please explain a bit more on your idea of males and females being "unequal" mentally? [/b] Thank you in advance

Well, I don't know if you've read any books on human psychology, but we do indeed have different minds--it's not really debatable. Women are better at multitasking, while men are better at making calculation. Women tend to make decisions based on emotions while men tend to make them based on logic (faulty or not).

I have read some on human psychology and your claim is debateable. First, you wrote that women and men are "mentally unequal". Perhaps I should have been more clear and ask if you think that females are less intelligent then males. "Different" is not the same as "unequal" by the way but your word was the latter.

Next, why should the linked source be considered any form of authority? It is not documented, the author has not given any credentials that she knows what she is writing about and the site is one for finding information on medical school programs. It is not one on the study of human brain function. I would trust a neurologist like Olive Sacks who is a known figure in the field, over an unknown person who puts up an essay on-line. Also, the essay uses words like "tend" and "typically". Those are generalizations that do not necessarily apply to individual women and men.

Just to be plain, I will assert that there is no "women" or no "men" that is that there isn't a single "all are this way" monolithic bloc that does apply to all people of either sex. There are billions of individual human beings with some things in common yet each is unique in her/his person.

Quote

Quote

As to the physical, while in general the average adult male is taller and stronger than the average adult female, it is not applicable to all human beings across the board. It is not a "Law of the Universe" as it were.

As I was hinting to in a previous post......it is important to read the Quran, and study the religion by looking at things from a macro-perspective not micro. The religion encourages right-brain thinking..... learning intuitively, seeing things from a broader perspective.... ie. see things form the Creator's point of view.

Now of course there are some females that think like men and are physically bigger than men. But she can have a child, and men can't..... so if she gets married, it's best for her to take care of the young child... and have the men take care of the finances. I mean, the father can't really breastfeed the child.

So you are saying that in your view the Quran, if read "poetically" as opposed to what for some is the plain meaning of some portions, somehow trumps the functioning or abilities of real living human beings?

I'm sorry, would you please clarify what you mean if that is not the case? I am trying to understand your particular view point.

Thank you.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I am not a Dickens scholar, but I have read some of his works. That purported "quote" from him along with the others on the linked site are found in many sites supporting Islam. But there is no citation for it or for some of the others. I could be wrong but I can't think of how this "quote" would fit into any of his novels or shorter works. So it is possible that it is a mis-attribution or someone did not understand who really did write it or it could be completely made up and Dickens' name applied to it.

So if you can find a copy, it may have a more direct source on Dickens quote.

It could be tricky since Amazon does not appear to have it at this time, though I can do a seaerch. Have *you* read this book? or did you just find this set of quotes on line in one of the many sites where they are repeated without any sources? It could be that the book gets the quotes from the 'net. Then it would not be a good source, but highly dubious.

Quote

Quote

The campaign against and slaughter of Hussain and his followers was violent and tragic. It is an historic fact with a date and a place. Why would it need support from undocumented attributed quotes.

I am not trying to be difficult but claims need to be supported.

Ebor

You're right, these quotes weren't really necessary.....but I though they were interesting sidenotes, to encourage others to read about the story of Hussein, and see what really happened to the descendants of the Prophet in the early years of Islam.

And would you encourage people to read about the conflict between the two factions that became Sunni and Shia from the Sunni point of view, too? There was disagreement from the start and it continues to this day.

<edited for spelling correction>

« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 11:59:52 AM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

First, you wrote that women and men are "mentally unequal". Perhaps I should have been more clear and ask if you think that females are less intelligent then males. "Different" is not the same as "unequal" by the way but your word was the latter.

For most Muslims the word "identical" means "equal" and the word "different" means "unequal".

For instance, when I tell them that God is three distinct yet equal persons, they immediately protest and say that it's impossible to talk of three equal persons if they are distinct.

If that is the case Theophilos78, then the implication would be that one set/group/person would be superior. To be blunt, it seems to my reading then that in the "mentally unequal" equation it would be not be saying that "women" are more intelligent than "men" but rather the reverse and that it is to be applied to all human beings no matter their individual gifts and abilities.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

If that is the case Theophilos78, then the implication would be that one set/group/person would be superior. To be blunt, it seems to my reading then that in the "mentally unequal" equation it would be not be saying that "women" are more intelligent than "men" but rather the reverse and that it is to be applied to all human beings no matter their individual gifts and abilities.

This is unfortunately the case. I even remember that at school my professor of religion once said that men have beard whereas women do not. This proves that men are superior to women.

And this is a surprise in a religion in which a woman's testimony in court is not valued as that of a man, and the founder of the religion itself supposedly said that women are deficient in intelligence? I'd be more sad that women buy into this garbage (women are said, at least by Islamic apologists, to be the majority of converts to Islam, and in my own life most of the converts I have known have been women). Certainly the intelligence of those particular women is at least being suppressed at the time of their conversion... (though not later on, as the majority of converts eventually leave the religion, thank God.)

And this is a surprise in a religion in which a woman's testimony in court is not valued as that of a man, and the founder of the religion itself supposedly said that women are deficient in intelligence? I'd be more sad that women buy into this garbage (women are said, at least by Islamic apologists, to be the majority of converts to Islam, and in my own life most of the converts I have known have been women). Certainly the intelligence of those particular women is at least being suppressed at the time of their conversion... (though not later on, as the majority of converts eventually leave the religion, thank God.)

Women who know Islam well yet convert to it cannot be said to be intelligent though.

If that is the case Theophilos78, then the implication would be that one set/group/person would be superior. To be blunt, it seems to my reading then that in the "mentally unequal" equation it would be not be saying that "women" are more intelligent than "men" but rather the reverse and that it is to be applied to all human beings no matter their individual gifts and abilities.

This is unfortunately the case. I even remember that at school my professor of religion once said that men have beard whereas women do not. This proves that men are superior to women.

The physical property of having hair growing on the lower part of the face = "superior"...

I think I'm missing part of that particular ermm logical progression, especially since human females, being mammals, also have hair, though generally not as dark/thick as males. But that can vary by genetic heritage as well.

and then there's the rest of the unfinished sentence that they are superior "in what"? Having some additional protection against cold or sunburn?

« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 12:29:29 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

You're missing something because you're trying to make Islam make sense, Ebor. Stop it. That's a trick of the dajjal to deceive you from having perfect iman. With better faith, you'd be able to believe in any old thing that Muhammad Allah believes, purely because the Qur'an says so Allah's apostle said it.

But aren't there still religious symbols in Islam, Fibonacci? Even the flag of the Shahada, while in some sense purely textual, is still a symbol, in that even those who could not read it came to eventually associate it with Islam. Or, for that matter, the association of the color green with Islam. You can't get more symbolic/abstract than taking a color and tying meaning into it.

This reminds me of the conundrum of Protestant Christians, who will often look at physical acts or objects in the Church and say "that's idolatry" or "that's paganism", but not even consider why they might have an American flag somewhere in their church (we had one off to the side of the stage in the Presbyterian church I was raised in), or their pastor might of a photograph of his wife on his desk in his office, or they might even have modern drawings (not icons) of a rather hippie-ish Jesus in the "teen bibles" produced or purchased for use in their youth groups.

Many people have more symbols in their spiritual lives than their 'orthodoxy' allows them to admit.

talks about how messengers were sent into every region, to guide the people, to follow God and not satan.

So every religion on earth had the same truths/wisdoms at the time of their origins, and it was coming from messengers/prophets chosen by God (probably the most pious individual of a community).

So there is a good chance that Krishna was a prophet as well, since there are a lot of truthful wisdom in the hindu religion. However today it's most likely a lot of things were corrupted... for example reincarnation (eerily similar to the pagan religion) and worshiping multiple Gods (also very similar to the pagan religion-- they believe that multiple God would never have disagreements with one another when they created the universe).

In fact, I've spoken with hindus who said that at a very deep level... hinduisim gives hints that all these Gods are different forms of One God. So at a deep level hinduisim is also a monotheistic religion -- just not at the mainstream level. So it's a matter of spending time, researching the religion and look at patterns that are shared with other religions.

These are very sad news... I have no explanation for the radical behaviors of this wahabbi group.

If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I mentioned that shia Iran have always been fighting these wahabbi groups throughout the 90s-- and were warning many nations about these radical movements long before the global community officially payed attention to it.

What is the relationship between mainstream Islam and the more non-conventional forms of Islam like the Nation of Islam or the Five Percent Nation which are popular among impoverished Black folks in urban areas? Are they considered real Muslims or are they considered a weird offshoot, like the weird Evangelical Christian Churches that sometimes open up?

Is there any chance that you could answer my query as to how you deal with the errors in the Quran, given that it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God?

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

What is the relationship between mainstream Islam and the more non-conventional forms of Islam like the Nation of Islam or the Five Percent Nation which are popular among impoverished Black folks in urban areas? Are they considered real Muslims or are they considered a weird offshoot, like the weird Evangelical Christian Churches that sometimes open up?

You never answered my question :-(

James this is a sorta pointless question and the answer is easily found elsewhere.

I have no idea from where fibonacci hails, but it could likely be he would have to google what you are asking about in the first place.

I've never met a mainstream Muslim who thought there was any connection between the NOI its founding organization, or the off shoots from it. Almost none know anything about them.

If you know anything about Black Islam and Islam you would know that the teachings held by Black Muslims would be considered extremely heretical by any "orthodox" Muslim.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Is there any chance that you could answer my query as to how you deal with the errors in the Quran, given that it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God?

James

Islam doesn't hold the Koran to be the direct word of God.

This is one of basics of Islamic thought and practice.

Now, most Muslims I've met would argue there are no errors in the Koran.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

What is the relationship between mainstream Islam and the more non-conventional forms of Islam like the Nation of Islam or the Five Percent Nation which are popular among impoverished Black folks in urban areas? Are they considered real Muslims or are they considered a weird offshoot, like the weird Evangelical Christian Churches that sometimes open up?

You never answered my question :-(

James this is a sorta pointless question and the answer is easily found elsewhere.

I have no idea from where fibonacci hails, but it could likely be he would have to google what you are asking about in the first place.

I've never met a mainstream Muslim who thought there was any connection between the NOI its founding organization, or the off shoots from it. Almost none know anything about them.

If you know anything about Black Islam and Islam you would know that the teachings held by Black Muslims would be considered extremely heretical by any "orthodox" Muslim.

"Black Muslims" not to be confused with Muslims who are black. I believe the majority of African-American Muslims are "orthodox" nowadays. The Nation of Islam has some unusual ideas, as I recall, such as believing that white people were created by an evil mad scientist.

What is the relationship between mainstream Islam and the more non-conventional forms of Islam like the Nation of Islam or the Five Percent Nation which are popular among impoverished Black folks in urban areas? Are they considered real Muslims or are they considered a weird offshoot, like the weird Evangelical Christian Churches that sometimes open up?

You never answered my question :-(

James this is a sorta pointless question and the answer is easily found elsewhere.

I have no idea from where fibonacci hails, but it could likely be he would have to google what you are asking about in the first place.

I've never met a mainstream Muslim who thought there was any connection between the NOI its founding organization, or the off shoots from it. Almost none know anything about them.

If you know anything about Black Islam and Islam you would know that the teachings held by Black Muslims would be considered extremely heretical by any "orthodox" Muslim.

"Black Muslims" not to be confused with Muslims who are black. I believe the majority of African-American Muslims are "orthodox" nowadays. The Nation of Islam has some unusual ideas, as I recall, such as believing that white people were created by an evil mad scientist.

There are still a few hold out from the good ol' days. I pass a guy nearly every day slinging The Final Call and incense with the requisite bow tie.

I get my hair cut every other time in a barber shop owned by a Black Muslim (that would be opposed to a black Muslim) the older guys are NOI but some the younger kidz don't believe in anything or claim to be Fiver Percenters and the like.

When this subject comes I always have to point out the the NOI is a schismatic group from a group of much cooler cats:

1. Yes, latter rules in the Qur'an replace initial rules. The initial rules were there to ease the early muslims into the religion.

For example on alcohol, it initially says that they lead you to sin, then another verse talks about avoiding drunkiness, and finally a verse came out for the out right ban of it.

2. Chess is allowed so long as you treat it as a mental exercise, and you don't become obsessed with it, to the point where it affects your emotions (anger, hubris,...etc.).

It's the same thing with sports. Playing it to improve your health and/or communication/team skills is not a problem. It becomes a problem when someone becomes obsessed with it and treats it as a religion. Today unfortunately, many young muslims are way too obsessed about professional football. They worship it like it's a God. They know all sorts of facts about football starts, their style of play and their private lives... but have no clue how the economy works and how usury is harming society.

What do you make of the fact the quran says the true followers of Christ would be victorius to the day of ressurection. That those who were victorius at the time of Muhammad were those who worshipped Christ and called him God, in direct violation to the quran which says this is blasphemy.

But, they have medical evidence such as bruising and tearing of tissues. Do they consider that forensic evidence?What happens to the victim if she does not prove her case?

The court will in no doubt consider all evidences.If she can't prove her case, the community will most likely analyze past behaviors of the accuser. Talk to neighbors, teachers, ...etc. to figuire out what kind of character he is. The truth will eventually come out.

The more pious you are.. that is, the longer you live a life working very hard avoiding all sins, the more likely you'll achieve this vision.Once you've obtain it, you'll instantly be able to see the evil around you. You'll be able to see corruption around you.

You'll be able to see the evil on very very bad people. Like corrupt politicians, murders, thieves, bullies ....etc.

What do you make of the fact the quran says the true followers of Christ would be victorius to the day of ressurection. That those who were victorius at the time of Muhammad were those who worshipped Christ and called him God, in direct violation to the quran which says this is blasphemy.

Nicene, you have to give me time... I'm still on page 3 answering questions.

But here's a brief answer, and hopefully it answers other user's questions about trinity:

Firstly, you know Muslims in the future are also going to be followers of Christ as well, so it's not referring exclusively to Christians. Also there are some Christians after the prophet's time who have rejected trinity.

For example, Issac Newton, who spent his whole life searching for the truth. He spent a considerable amount of time studying the bible and spirituality, and he eventually reached a point where he secretly rejected trinity.

One of the things that Christians say that Jesus is the Lord or son of God, is because he's a special divine leader who didn't have a father. But if that's the case, what would Adam be? He didn't have a father nor a mother.

The context of the quran (which usually lacks context) is quite clear in this regaurd, that is Christ is talking to his desciples, who will be my helpers in allah? And then when the apostles answer this we are told that the followers of Christ (from the apostles) would be victorius to the day of ressurection. So theres no real way to include muslims into this category and even if you do, before islam the dominant power, the victorius ones were the Western and Eastern Empires, which were CHristian and Nicene in their definition.

You mention CHristians who rejected the trinity, certaintly there were groups, but none of them were victorius by the time Muhammad came, thus the quran cannot be talking about them and none of these groups were islamic. The arrians considered Christ the first created entity, a pre existent creature who God used and gave power to create the world and everyone in it. This is in stark contrast to the quran and Islam which has Christ as a created being on earth.

So there are categories you must find in order to avoid the obvious conclusion of the Christian roman empire being talked about;

1. They must be before Muhammad

2. They must be the victorius ones

3. They must be of the apostles who followed Christ

The only ones who fit into this category by reason and historical standards are the Orthodox Christians.